“I also feel that the government should cut off funding to Planned Parenthood,” the former Massachusetts governor added. “Look, the idea that we’re subsidizing an institution which is providing abortion, in my view, is wrong. Planned Parenthood ought to stand on their own feet, and should not get government subsidy.”

He’s certainly entitled to his opinion–though I think he underestimates how this statement will play with women voters. But if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions in America, he’s going about it all wrong. In fact, everyone who commented on my last post, lambasting me for my support of Planned Parenthood (and even calling me a baby killer), is thinking about things wrong. You are looking at the wrong number. You need to take your eyes off the 3% and start focusing on the 97%.

Let me explain. Yes, 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services include abortion. Note none of those abortions are paid for by Komen grants or government subsidies and it’s a small fraction of what Planned Parenthood actually does.

Now look at the right number: the 97%. The 97% of services that include education and birth control, not to mention the cancer screenings and affordable healthcare services. Services that, time and time again, have been shown to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

An ideological war on abortion that ignores the data and sets its sights on low-income women who lack proper education and resources must stop. The Pro-Life movement must make reducing the rate of abortion the goal, and seek rational methods and solutions that will serve this purpose.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to stop the hypocrisy, stop the name-calling, do some research and work to a common goal–otherwise, we aren’t going to get anywhere.

So, those federal funds cannot be used for abortion? What an absurd statement.

If there were a terrorist organization whose goal was to shoot children, but you provided humanitarian funding to them so that they could medically treat their poor warriors injured in the battle. The funds were provided with the stipulation that none of the funds were to be used to purchase bullets.

You just allowed the terrorist children-shooting group to redirect their budget allocations, originally directed to care for their wounded, into buying bullets and recruiting more warriors.

How do you figure that? It is not likely that abortion will be outlawed! My objection is my tax money being used to support, in any way, an organization with its significant function being to provide abortion services.

There is a market there for Planned Parent, just let the free market work or propagandize the charity organizations to provide supportive funding. Heck, if abortion is such a fractionally small part of the business, as claimed, provide abortions pro bono publico. But, tain’t going to happen, because abortion procedures are a primary money generator in Planned Parenthood.

As for referral services, such is available from many sources whose budget doesn’t receive tax payer money to support them so they can divert money from other sources into their “sideline(?)” of performing abortions.

Abortion, even abortion reduction, has been turned into a political football much like gay marriage was in 2004. It’s a way of getting the base fired up and getting people to the polls.

I went to the open house for the Planned Parenthood on Fannin and saw firsthand how they operate and all the services they provide. Most of those critical of PP, dare I say at least 90% only know what they read and see on TV.

When I look at some of the more rabid comments, “Planned Parenthood making money off abortions”, I have to wonder how we can make progress on limiting abortions when a segment of the population is unwilling to look for the truth.

The same group that rails against abortion is also against cheap contraception and comprehensive sex-ed in schools. Those who seek to defund groups like Planned Parenthood are unwilling to fund good alternatives. Many clinics like the People’s Clinic in Austin have been the unintentional victims of this systematic purge.

You are right on.. But you forget the most important part.. it is impossible to have a battle of wits when the other side is unarmed..

Most conservatives are like a screaming child wanting a toy in a grocery store.. They wan’t it their way and will scream and argue till they get it.

We could distribute birth control , cover birth control on insurance, teach teenagers that abstinence is a choice but if they choose to have sex to take precautions and make those options available.. That would reduce pregnancies and reduce abortions that yes.. I do believe both sides want to do.

But when you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend people do not have sex before marriage and then take your head out of the sand just long enough to waive your bible at people and demand “OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY” then abortions will continue to skyrocket. The conservatives and church organizations, through their teachings and beliefs, lead to quite a few abortions whether they BELIEVE or not

I know exactly what you mean, Kayt. I am a prayerfully, prochoice Christian, and I used to be stunned at what my fellow so-called Christians would say to me when they found out my stance on this very personal subject.
I feel that adoptiom is the much preferred option, but that abortion should remain legal and available. Adoption isn’t the rosy pictured answer like people present it to be. My sister was pregnant at 20, and didn’t even know it until she was 6 months along. She had her monthlies until then..and attributed her weight gain to too many late night and early morning breakfastes at Waffle House while she was working and going to school. She went to PP, found out she was pregnant, found out HOW pregnant she was, and they directed her to an adoption lawyer, since an abortion that late in the game is illegal.
She opted for a private adoption, which was wonderful…but the pressure on her to keep it open was unreal. This, I’m told, is standard these days…which kind of defeats part of the adoption purpose. I realize there are those like Charlayne who want to reconnect with their babies..but there are just as many who do not. Mainly the fathers..but the mothers too. They want to put the baby up and leave it in the past…and not worry that one day, 20 years later, an entire lifetime later, they could be sitting down to dinner with their families and get a knock on the door. Or an email, a phone call from someone they wanted to leave in their past?
With more and more courts overlooking privacy laws and wishes of bio parents, who can blame an unmarried, pregnant woman for opting for the one solution that won’t come back and ruin her life yet again? I know I wouldn’t want to go through pregnancy, birth, signing away my newborn..and have to worry years later over every email, every phone call, every knock on the door that I’m going to have to explain myself yet again to an angry, hurt, etc young person why I did what I did. Who needs that?
Also, may I mention the prospective adoptive parents who back out when a baby is born with some problems…or the ones who have come back and tried to sue the birth parents because some of their behaviors MIGHT have contributed to the problems their infant/toddler/preschooler is having.
Oh… and don’t forget MOST adoptive parents want WHITE, HEALTHY babies..not minority ones.
***
The only solution to ending abortion is preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Everyone agrees on that…but no one can agree on how, exactly to do it.

When you start your argument with the 3% number you are showing your willingness to obsfuscate. Tell us the revenues involved. Komen provides less than 1% of PP funds and your side will go to the mat to force federal funding of abortions. Something Obama himself was willing to lie about when he offered Bart Stupak his executive order.

Truly bizarre that liberals will sacrifice their credibility to promote abortion. Thanks for the heads up.

I have never seen any reliable evidence that Planned Parenthood has violated the Hyde Amendement, nor have the regulatory agencies that monitor PP alleged such. Strong claims require strong evidence, Dan.

“Note none of those abortions are paid for by Komen grants or government subsidies . . .”

Perhaps it would be good to put things into perspective and also to get the facts correct.

First, “only 3%” certainly sounds like not much to worry about. However, the actual numbers show that in 2006, Planned Parenthood performed 289,750 abortions, or approximately 23% of all abortions performed in the United States, making them the largest abortion provider in the United States. Even as the overall national abortion rate goes down, Planned Parenthood continues to perform more abortions every year.

And, the 3% number is mis-leading. Of 3.1 million Planned Parenthood clients in 2006, 9% got abortions. Moreover, abortion accounts for at least a third of Planned Parenthood’s total income from clinic services.

The annual budget of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates for fiscal year 2006-2007 was $1,017,900,000 — over one billion dollars. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates received $336,700,000 in taxpayer dollars during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the most recent year for which data is available. Public funds thus constitute nearly a third of Planned Parenthoods annual budget.

The author of this post attempts to present a simple solution for a complex issue. 1- Many PP agencies in varying states are being investigated for not reporting underage women wanting an abortion. Some as young as 11. 2- Abortions may make up 3% of PP actions but it raises 95% of it’s funds. There is money, very good money in providing abortion. 3- PP never has provided mamogram services which is contrary to all the hype and lies put out by the left.

I think the SCOTUS needs to revisit this issue simply because the science and technology has gotten worlds better then the ignorant view of 1972.

Also, Margaret Sanger was a eugenics supporter along with Charles Lindburg and other North Eastern elites who supported abortions to stop the propagating of the inferior races. Supporters must be proud that her goal is being realized.

This is exactly why I went from doctor to doctor with the complete support of my fiance’ until I found one willing to give a unmarried nulliparous woman a tubal referral (female – what a surprise!) Be DAMNED if anyone was going to use my body to own and control me! But then again, all those other doctors could have been right. I was only in my early 40’s, filling my empty days handling multi-million dollar asset portfolios – as if a silly little girl like that could possibly make a rational decision regarding my own reproductive and health care!

AMEN, Cynthia. I would support stricter regulation on abortion IF and ONLY IF gov’t would REQUIRE any medical professional to sterilize any legal adult requesting the procedure.
When I married my first husband in 1991, I was 26 years old, had been living on my own, supporting myself, for over 5 years. Neither my 23 year old husband (on his own 7 years) nor myself wanted to bring any children into our marriage, as we knew that our choices in life would not enable us to give to any children the life we would want to give them. So, I went to my longtime gyne and asked for a tubal.
He refused.
My husband stepped up and asked for a vasectomy.
My dr refused.
We were ‘too young’ to make those decisions.
So, we were old enough to drink, to smoke, to get married, to buy a house, to buy a car, to buy a gun, to enlist in the service, to jump out of an airplane, to scuba dive with sharks, to tour Europe with only a backpack, to HAVE a kid…but not old enough to decide NOT to have a kid.
WTH?
So we started calling around, to different gynies, womens clinics, including PP…and it was at PP where I was told that due to malpractice concerns, most insurance carriers would NOT ALLOW docs to perform these procedures on women / men under 40 (although the men one was a little more flexible) unless they already had two or more kids. They were afraid that later on down the line someone would sue them for doing the operation they requested, saying the doctors should have known better. Sadly, I can see this happening today in our litigious society.
So, despite our doubling up on birth control during my most fertile times of my cycle AND my being on the Pill, in 1996 we got pregnant with our daughter. We did decide to have her, figuring any kid so determined to be born that it would overcome not one but TWO of the most effective birth control devices made deserved to be born. And since she was full frontal breech, she had to debut via C-section. Great! I told my doc (Gabriel Hoyos, what a WONDERFUL doctor) “Hey, while you’re in there, tie my tubes, willya?” He, like my original gynie in 1991, refused. “What if something happens to this baby?” he said. He then went on to reiterate what I was told in 1991…that despite the fact that I was 32, his ins carrier would not permit that procedure to be done on any woman under 35 with less than two children. And since so many women are having babies well into their 40s, the insurance carriers were more than likely to boost the 35 up to 45.
And to back him up, my bff, NOT a patient of my gynies, said the same thing in 2000, when she had her youngest. She requested a ligation, and they were reluctant to do it since she only had two boys and was under 40. The ONLY reason they agreed was because both her pregnancies were very complicated and dangerous ones.
So, no….until women can get sterilized on demand, then abortion on demand must remain the law of the land.

Planned Parenthood is an excellent organization. Those who try to smear it do a great disservice to women. It baffles my mind when women vote Republican. They must be as subservient as your average wench from the middle ages.

This pro-choice/ so-called ‘pro-abortionist’ is GRATEFUL that her ‘pro-abortionist’ mother AND father CHOSE to stay on the pill, plan and welcome her and her two sisters into this world with open arms.

Luckily, my mom received proper sexual education and learned how to use birth control and planned her family with my father. Funny… sexual education and birth control are something YOUR side refuse to compromise on…

Contrary to many arguments I have heard, PP does not give away cheap and free abortions. They are pretty expensive, actually. I can see where the argument could be made that they help pay for the myriad of women’s health services that PP offers. The money from donations probably doesn’t go nearly as far as people think… certainly not far enough to pay for any abortions!

Thinking rationally, if you want to reduce abortions, another way would be to increase donations to Planned Parenthood, thus not just improving birth control and family planning (and reducing abortions), but making those things even less of a burden on PP as a service provider (reducing the financial need for them to offer abortions). Simply put, donating to Planned Parenthood is a great thing for both sides of the pro-choice debate. It is truly a win/win.

I’ve often wondered if there’s any intelligent thought in the pro-life movement. Pro-lifer, John Saveland, is the first rational voice I’ve heard from that side. I think we should all abandon pro-life and pro-choice and focus on pro-responsibility that educates youth about the consequences of poor choices, and birth prevention and control methods. This would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

The FACT that the 97% of Planned Parenthood services avoids many, many more unwanted pregnancies than the abortions they also provide doesn’t matter to the No Choicers. That fact that the Catholic Church spouts backward, dark-age policies against safe and healthy contraception that not only helps lead to unwanted pregnancies but the overpopulation of the world doesn’t matter.

The fact that Planned Parenthood provides breast cancer screening to many women who would not afford it otherwise doesn’t matter.

The fact that all of Planned Parenthood’s services are legal, doesn’t matter.

I’d like to know what the commenters above are doing to prevent abortion, besides trying to defund it and make it illegal. Those actions don’t make unwanted pregnancies go away. How are you helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies? PP is doing a lot. The Catholic Church is evidently trying to pray them away, since it continually stands between women and birth control. Make birth control and sex education more widely available and you will reduce unwanted pregnancies, and you will reduce abortions. It’s simple. Or you can just pray and punish and hate. See how that works.

Of course everyone believes that abortion is a bad thing and should be reduced. Of course that simplifies it a bit. There are people who think that abortion is bad like kicking a dog. There are other people who think it is bad like shooting someone. I would think that most people think that shooting someone should be illegal. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the people who equate abortion to shooting someone feel that it should be defended and made illegal, vs the people who equate it with kicking a dog.

Many people actually feel that shooting a man is acceptable under certain circumstances, i.e. self defense or in defense of one’s property. Other methods of ending one’s life are also deemed acceptable by most in the US – that is the death penalty. Furthermore both instances that I’ve cited are completely legal in many states in the US. That being said, I don’t think that you or anyone else could compare shooting a man to abortion. Aside from what one considers the beginning of life, I am compelled to believe that many who chose abortion consider it a last resort and something that affects them greatly emotionally. I do not believe it is a decision made lightly, or what you could compare to kicking a dog. I think you are grossly simplifying that which is involved in making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Fortunately for you, if I can make a conclusion based on your user name, you will never be faced with having to make such a decision.

“Note none of those abortions are paid for by Komen grants or government subsidies…”
—
This is a bogus argument. It doesn’t matter if I take money out of my left pocket or my right pocket to pay for something, it’s the same pair of pants.

It’s none of my business who does or doesn’t have an abortion. That’s not my argument. The topic of discussion is stopping “abortion hypocrisy”. The Komen Foundation wants to have it both ways; they want to support an organization that performs abortions, but want to be able to tell their supporters that they don’t support abortion. That is hypocrisy.

The pro-life side of this debate is so unreasonable. First, I don’t understand why my uterus is anyone else’s business. If I have the baby and need help to support it, I’m a welfare queen. If I don’t have the baby, I’m a killer…and this applies whether I willingly had sex or not. They talk about all these lives lost, when there are thousands of children right in their face that they do NOTHING for. These kids become wards of the state and more times than not have serious emotional problems from feeling abandoned. Pro-Lifers should be more concerned about removing the stigma of the “welfare mom” if they want these babies to be born. They should adopt the children who are already herer. When they protest, they should have TANGIBLE alternatives for these women…meaning names and numbers of people waiting to adopt. This isn’t really about saving lives.

Unwanted pregnancies are a tragedy and there is no good solution. I certainly wouldn’t tell you what to do with your decision; it’s yours. I would tell you however that you are responsible either way… I see that you left the father out of your equation. I do not believe in welfare for a child with a living father, so yes I would probably call you a welfare queen if you wanted my taxes to foot the bill for your illegitimate child. If you decided to terminate the pregnancy, you can’t possibly fool yourself into thinking it’s not a life. If it wasn’t alive you wouldn’t have to kill it. If you don’t kill it, it calls you mommy… It’s a terrible predicament. I know because I have been there on the Daddy side.

Speak for yourself…we have adopted a child for these very reasons. Please stop making blanket statements on people’s pro-life motivation. Either you believe abortion is murder or you don’t. Those that believe its murder believe that is the issue and not whether or not you are inconvenienced with an unwanted pregnancy. Those that believe unborn children can be swatted away like a pesky mosquito, then go ahead kill your unborn. But, don’t be surprised one day when you stand before God and give an accounting (assuming you believe there is a God.)

“I do not believe in welfare for a child with a living father, so yes I would probably call you a welfare queen if you wanted my taxes to foot the bill for your illegitimate child.”

Soooo….if living dad just quietly takes a walk (preferable to trying to kill mom or merely beat her up for “getting herself pregnant” before taking off) and can’t be found, mom is a welfare queen. Nice.

jackalope-I don’t see where you get off on telling anyone who is pro-choice ( or anyone who does not agree with you ) that they are against personal responsibilty. The whole idea of promoting education about birth control and responsible sexual behavior IS about personal responsibility.

I agree with you… to a point. I am pro-choice, however, I agree with you in that many women here seem to be forgetting the role of a man(father).

Slightly OT: Many pro-choice women act like their pregnancy is theirs and theirs only. It is ridiculous for me to think there are women that want to decide as if men have no role/responsibility at all. Men should have just as much of a voice as women within this debate so long as 50% of their genetic material is involved.

I may be pro-choice, but I am against any woman that feels she has total say-so regarding pregnancy. Whatever you wish to call what is growing inside her… embryo, fetus, child, it is as much his as it is hers. The debate is about FAR more than *women’s* rights. It is ridiculous to think anyone would believe a man’s rights aren’t involved as well.

OshJay, if the man stays around to provide 50% of the care, whether monetary and/or hands-on and emotional support from the time the stick turns blue, he has a say. If the extent of his involvement is bragging on Facebook that Mr. Happy didn’t shoot blanks, he doesn’t.

@ Jackalope – The economy is going to stay pretty screwed regardless. I will be voting for the one least likely to legislate my ovaries and other girl parts. I wish guys had to worry about THAT kind of legislation, too. (Women: You just don’t know what’s best for you … based upon my religious beliefs. /sarcasm)

However, I’d like to speak for a moment about your critics. You cannot deal in this issue rationally in moderation if you feel that life begins at conception. Please try to understand their rationale. In the eyes of anyone who believes life begins at conception, this is murder of a child. Wholely unforgivable and monsterous beyond compare. No matter what good you do, if you are a child killer, that overwhelms all other actions. It is a disagreement with your worldview, but logically consistent and not hypocrisy.

The hypocrites are those who believe life begins at conception and are not shutting down/bombing abortion clinics. They state that it is child-murder and then do nothing effective to stop it. In their own eyes, this makes them accessories to murder, but they do nothing.

The 97% argument goes both ways. If that 97% (and we’ll ignore the veracity of that number for now) of services is SO important for women’s health, why isn’t Planned Parenthood willing to give up the 3%?

Here’s what happens when abortion is readily available on demand:
I read a study a week or so ago where it said that 22% of girls didn’t care if they got pregnant.
Another article this week reported on dentists advising teens to get pregnant so that Medicaid would pay for their braces.

Just list the patient numbers, Kayt. In 2010, planned parenthood “served” 3,000,000 patients and performed 330,000 abortions. So around 11% of all females who were patients of planned parenthood got an abortion.
(By the way, planned parenthood in 2010 made a grand total of 83 adoption referrals.)

And likely all of those people went into PP on other occasions for other procedures, screenings, check-ups etc.. So of all the services provided, the number of abortions is very likely 3%, if all of them went 3 times on average.

Hmm, seem to have heard a lot about late term abortions, more correctly called partial birth abortions. Didn’t know “late term” abortions were outlawed. Seems they are still legal when there is danger to the health of the mother. Seems that all such “late term” abortions are therefore classified as “for the health of the mother.”

Planned Parenthood has supported late-term abortions where babies are litterally murdered as they are being born. But by all means reduce this to an argument over percentages.

Talk about hypocrisy! By your rationale, we shoulden’t revile Hitler because he only murdered a small precentage of the European population while doing so many great things to get Germany out of the Depression.

Planned Parenthood’s “final solution” is pushed on young mothers-to-be who are frightened and vulnerable to bad counsel. The holocaust of voiceless children, so easily forgotton by you and your type, is as great a tragedy as any nation has turned a blind eye to.

You will be remembered for your blithe dismissal of this as mere statistics. These are babies who’s lives were held to be less valuable than the convenience of their mothers. But what’s a few million babies lives to you? They have affordable cancer screenings! Thant more than makes up for it.

It’s people like you who make Josef Stalin’s words true: one murder is a tragedy, one million murders is a statistic.

Reality Check, have you ever BEEN a young mother who was frightened who went to Planned Parenthood for help? Do you have first-hand knowledge about how they work or are all of your “facts” based on the stuff you are told by the anti-abortion activists? If they are, let me enlighten you and give YOU a real Reality Check…

I was an unwed mother, 19 and scared out of my mind. My parents were not going to be happy and quite frankly, I believed my father when he showed my boyfriend the shotgun and told him that if I turned up pregnant, he would shoot him AND me. Of course, the boyfriend was out of state, in the military, and I had moved on to another boy and we got me pregnant first time I ever did anything.

I went to Planned Parenthood to get the test, to see what I was suspecting was true. When it came back positive, I broke down in hysterics and totally lost every idea of what to do. This is the time when most anti-abortionist will tell you that Planned Parenthood does it’s evil work, taking advantage of the girl and getting her into an abortion because that’s what they do. They want to kill every baby they can and a hysterical young woman is the perfect target.

Well, they brought me a coke, took me to a room and let me calm down with a lady to talk to me about how things were at home and why I was so afraid. She was understanding and kind. No mention of any solution as made until I was calmed down and finally able to breathe and think again. Then she told me that there were SEVERAL ways of handling this situation. I could have the baby and either keep it or give it up for adoption or have an abortion. She explained each choice and what it would take to do them. The lady even gave me a list of agencies to help me with keeping the baby and the medical care for the pregnancy and birth and they also gave me a list of adoption agencies and explained the different types of adoption and how they work. The abortion was explained and what the cost was and how it would effect my health and future ability to have children.

I was not “pushed” into any choice. I wasn’t even pushed to make a decision that day. I was given information, given a medical exam to make sure I was healthy, and I went home with written material on each choice and I gave the options a lot of thought.

You will be happy to know that my son was given up for adoption and was raised by very nice people and he has come back to me and we now share him as an adult. I have a beautiful young grand daughter.

And I’ve had friends who have been through them. Same treatment. My own daughter was scared and pregnant, we went to them, she wanted the abortion (much to my dismay but I do not have the right to make her decisions, she was of age), and, they did a sonogram to make sure of the age of the baby before they did the procedure, they found she was 7 1/2 months pregnant and she and I were given time to discuss the situation and what to do since it was a very late-term.

My grandson is turning 17 soon.

So you see, Reality Check, you need to do some serious research and actually find out what you think you know from people who have gone through Planned Parenthood before you start throwing Nazi and other terms on them. Women do not go there for abortions as birth control, there is no evil cabal planning to grab young women and rip all babies from their wombs, and women, for the most part, who go there, do not actually chose abortion, they get information and then make the decision to keep or adopt.

If you are naive enough to think Planned Parenthood doesn’t have an agenda, that’s your own business. I wish you’re conscience had cost more than a coke, though. You sold out cheaply. Planned Parenthood makes more $150 Million a year on abortions. Ask for more than a soft drink in return next time.

Nice, Reality Check. Charlayne gives you two REAL examples and experiences with Planned Parenthood, and you just insult her.
I guess you just couldn’t let her have the last word…especially since the last word blew your preconceived propaganda fed statements right out of the water.

AND both babies were born Mr. Reality Check if you had bothered to fully read Charlayne’s post. She didn’t “sell out for the price of a coke” as you say. And remember: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

I am in 100% agreement that “we” should stop ignoring the data and its implications. Accordingly, we should start with Kayt’s own allegations. First, Planned Parenthood itself admitted last week that it performed more than 350,000 abortions in 2011. Multiply that (and even this is an understatement) by the 30 years or so that PP has been providing “abortion services” and we discover that PP has been responsible for the termination of more than 10 million human beings. Kayt might simply say that these abortions were not really human and that’s why data alone is not the basis for this discussion. Money that goes to Koman was generally understood to go to cancer research. Now we now differently. If PP without government aid or Koman-type donations has $100 million to spend and a portion (Kayt says 3% but the real number is closer to 25% not counting profits generated for their services), then WITHOUT Koman aid, PP has to pay for that 25% itself…along with all other services. Now, have Koman pick up a portion of the “other” services and PP can redirect that funding to abortions. This is the same principle as borrowing $5 bucks from dad for a date and then borrowing another $5 from mom for the same date. But logic plays very little role for those who support abortion. Otherwise, they wouldn’t support it to start with.

You are assuming that money spent by PP on cancer screening is fixed and unchangeable. If fundraising falls, funds spent on cancer screening stays flat and its abortion services that are cut. You have no reason to think this…its just a wild guess on your part.

PP has said you are wrong, its the cancer screening that will be cut…but you are willing to make that sacrifice in order to make a statement.

Where are you getting your number? 3% comes directly from PP and there isn’t any kind of proof that those numbers are incorrect. So, if you have evidence that abortion services are 25% of what PP provides, I would love to see it.

From 6 months after conception, what you prefer to call a lump of tissue is a human being capable of living outside it’s mother’s womb. Less than 3/4 an inch of the mother’s tissue is the ONLY difference between what you want to call a baby and what this little human really is. I don’t like the concept of “anchor babies” anymore than you appear to. But that is an invalid argument in support of abortion. A change in the 13th Amendment would accomplish the same thing without murdering an innocent unborn child. I don’t fully understand your last comment but it does bring up an interesting question: by what standard would you judge anyone as being “worthless?”

Because Jennie Rae, that’s what Hitler did, in his warped mind he declared who was “worthless.” On another note, it’s sterilized. I doubt Hitler would have tolerated someone who misspelled words, he wanted a genius society.

wantingbalance says:
February 7, 2012 at 9:33 am
From 6 months after conception, what you prefer to call a lump of tissue is a human being capable of living outside it’s mother’s womb.
==
So simple solution have the woman consent to abandon the baby to the state at the location, and deliver it via C-section. Everyone wins except the state that has to try to pay to keep alive 0-9 month old premies.

@Jennie Rae: Well, it is a little more complicated than that. There is viability to consider, which seems to be the sticking point for many.

@wantingbalance: Most people don’t call a 6 month pregnancy a fetus or lump of tissue, and those who do are incorrect. In addition, a vast majority of abortions occur in the 1st trimester when you basically ARE looking at a lump of tissue.

It’s falling on deaf ears. I’ve been saying this for YEARS and the response: Baby killer. Immoral woman/whore. Liberal communist. Unborn babies in first trimester more important than women. Birth control itself is abortion. The 97% of non-abortion that Planned Parenthood does is negated by the 3% of abortions.

No AgLee you can’t but that does not mean that we stop getting our message out. We need to let people know that the ONLY way to prevent or lessen the numbers of abortion is to educated people on how to use birth control and how to act in a responsible manner. Believe it or not, despite the tone of some of these posts, there are resonable pro-life people out there and they are the ones that we need to work with.